Re Matthew Williams and Monks Park: this debate is now reaching ridiculous levels and I am totally baffled by your denial of the photos having been taken at Monks Park, when they show Matt and Richard.

The fact is those 2 photos (of literally dozens that Matt took; it may well have been over 100) show him and Richard in Monks Park! It’s no big deal to admit you’re wrong.

Ten and a half years ago, the situation was very different than today. Whereas now you can go down Monks Park, back then (summer 97) defense components and materials were storied there when it fell under the jurisdiction of Leafield Engineering, and it was a very secure installation.

You don’t have to take my word for it or the word of anyone in the UFO community, or Matt’s word or Richard Conway’s word that the photos were taken at Monks Park.

Instead, I recommend you print or cut and paste the relevant photos, then search the Net for the leading tunnel/underground research groups in the UK (there are several very good ones) and email them the pictures.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that even the most unbiased tunnel fanatic who has no interest AT ALL in UFOs will indeed identify the place as Monks Park.

How do we know? Because now, 10 years on, you can finally go there and take your own pictures for comparison - as many tunnel enthusiasts have now done, and SPECIFICALLY as per the YOUTUBE link I cited above in an earlier link above!

If you do follow this path, ask the relevant tunnel team if they can send you a couple of their photos taken in the same parts of Monks Park for comparison, and you’ll soon see that Matt and Richard WERE photographed by each other in Monks Park.

You said: “The Special Branch does not conduct investigative interviews in people’s private residences. They take people in for questioning; they do not make house calls for such things. So as for the tape that Robin made? That is all it is: a tape Robin MADE. It means nothing nor proves anything outside of that.”

You evidently didn’t read what I wrote. SB most certainly did visit Robin’s house. He did tape the interview. The interview was conducted by Detective Timothy Camp of the Special Branch office in the English city of Cheltenham, and I spoke with one of his colleagues involved who confirmed (as per my last post) that SB were angry about the tape-recording having been made without their knowledge etc.

And while you may say this is just my word, I would stress that while we may not agree on everything, I can assure you I do not lie, and I have far better things to do than make up tales of Special Branch to entertain (or not!) the people reading this!

You’re utterly wrong about them not making house calls too. I can tell you this for 2 reasons.

One: I have interviewed 4 former/retired SB employees over the last 10 years (while I was researching my “On the Trail of the Saucer Spies” book); and all unanimously told me (because I discussed the specifics of the Robin Cole affair with them) that SB operatives certainly DO make house-calls, occasionally for several reasons, and often for one VERY specific reason (if circumstances dictate that it might help the investigation):

Namely I was told that by visiting a person’s home, and trying to make the interview APPEAR relaxed and informal, it allows the SB people to have a cursory look at the place (to the extent that they are able to of course), and try and determine things like (hypothetically of course): (A) if the person has political literature on their living-room table; (B) is there a poster of Karl Marx on the wall?; (C) if there’s a bookcase in the room they’ll try and see what the books are - are there any political titles on the shelves? etc etc.

So, a seemingly innocent visit (in other words, a snoop) to a person’s home can tell a well-trained operative a great deal about that person, just by observing what may be in the home.

For example, if I got a visit tomorrow, and they innocently asked for a cup of tea, and while I was in the kitchen making tea they quickly and secretly peeked into my office, they would see on the wall a poster of the British punk-rock band the Sex Pistols, a framed poster of the “V for Vendetta” film, a framed poster of the “28 Days Later” film; and 100s of books on the CIA, FBI, MI5, KGB, espionage, UFOs, conspiracies, etc.

Now, the Sex Pistols recorded a song called “God save the Queen,” which was a vehement and utterly justified criticism of the British monaarchy. I admit I am not a monarchist in the slightest. I think it’s an outdated dinosaur-like entity that caters for the tourist industry and nothing else.

In the “V for Vendetta” film the character “V” blows up the Houses of Parliament in London. Now of course I don’t advocate that!!! But I do think it was a great film.

Same for “28 Days Later”. In case you haven’t seen it, it’s a zombie type horror film about a virus that escapes from a Porton Down-style lab in England where research is being done on monkeys, and that quickly spreads and infects the British population. It’s a very cool film.

And I have many books on Intelligence agencies for research when I’m writing my own books or articles.

So, you can see why it can be advantageous to visit a person’s home. In my case SB would learn I have a great taste in music (though many would doubtless disagree…) and I (like many of the British public in reality) have no love for the Royal Family; I enjoyed “V for Vendetta” (but they might perceive owning the poster as being sinister - they would be wrong, however; it’s just a great film and I bought the framed poster at my local Blockbuster shop, so nothing subversive about that!), and they might try and form a conclusion (erroneous or otherwise) concerning why I own so many books on the Intel world. They might also wonder as to why I have a “28 Days Later” poster on my wall - a film dealing with a viral outbreak in the UK that surfaces from a biowar research lab. The truth is again: because it’s one of my favourite films.

Would they be able to deduce all their conclusions (right or wrong) from calling me into an office? No.

There’s a second reason I know this to be so too: have you heard of a British newsstand magazine on espionage titled “Eye-Spy”? You can also buy it in the US, at B&N.

The editor is a man named Mark Birdsall, who is the brother of the late Graham Birdsall of the now-defunct British-based “UFO Magazine.”

In 2001, me and Mark traveled to London to interview for the magazine a man named David Shayler. Shayler worked for MI5 and whose whistle-blowing-type story is told in the book “Defending the Realm.”

I conducted the interview, and I audio-taped it in Shayler’s apartment, and I took the photos of Shayler that appear in the mag.

Mark then published it in Eye-Spy. Right afterwards, Mark got a phone call, from Special Branch, requesting an interview - IN MARK’S HOME.

He consented, SB traveled up to Mark’s Yorkshire home from London. SB wanted to specifically know if the interview in the magazine amounted to all the data that was on the tape.

Mark admitted that Shayler had said much more in the interview than was published in the magazine, and so SB asked Mark “Who has the tape?”

Mark replied: “Nick has it, because he taped it, transcribed it and wrote the article/interview for the magazine.”

So, then Mark phones me up and tells me what has happened. I then get a phone call from SB informing me that like it or not I will turn over the tape and any copies (there were no copies, as it transpires, as I didn’t have tape-to-tape access), which I duly was forced to do.

Nothing else ever happened (and this was 6 years ago), so evidently the other things Shayler mentioned on the tape weren’t major things that affected natiional security, but merely echoed the things that had appeared already in the “Defending the Realm” book (such as how MI5 had watched certain famous “subversives” like John Lennon).

But, that’s a personal experience (granted it’s not UFO related) I was involved in, in which an SB visit was made to a home of a member of the British public to conduct an interview.

You say re the “demon angle”: “That is merely a sales pitch. It is always “coming soon” but it never really gets here. When the first “revelation” bombs out, there will be another to follow…and another and another. It will not be anything different from any other yet-another-conspiracy theory we have all heard before.”

Nope, no sales pitch, as I have the officially released FOIA files - 100s of pages now. As I have stressed, I don’t personally subscribe to the demon theory either (we do agree on some things…). But as I know certain people in the official world DO; and they have spent countless dollars researching this, and influencing people in the official world (possibly even recklessly so), this is a story worth telling.

I don’t believe proof of this theory will ever be forthcoming, because I don’t buy the theory. But the point of the book is not to endorse the theory on my part - it is to show some of the strange (and costly) UFO projects that elements of the official world has developed in the 80s - despite having closed down Blue Book decades ago.

I respect faith, but doubt is what gives you an education.

The first link shows two photos by Matt of Monks Park. The second link shows two pictures of the “underground” with Matt in it as proof he was there, but there is no proof that that the pictures were taken underground in Monk’s Park, since there are no identifying signs or landmarks to demonstrate it is so. Are these pictures somehow supposed to prove Matt broke into Monk’s Park and took those pictures while he was there, because if they are, it is not working. More importantly, nobody cares if someone breaks into Monk’s Park, since the Rudloe UFO files is where the action is at.

My starting reference point concerning any alleged claims about the underground city at Wiltshire’s is here, http://www.bbc.co.uk/wiltshire/underground_city/index.shtml, at the BBC website. There you will find interactive road maps, virtual tours, and 360 degree panoramas of the Wiltshire underground city. Rudloe is not mentioned. Maybe they are not connected? I wonder if anyone would be gullible enough to believe me if I told them that BBC broke into the underground to get those very extensive pictures and videos on their site?

The fact is, there is no physical proof that Matt broke into Monk’s Park. There never has been and never will be, therefore there is plenty of doubt he broke in at all. You can claim otherwise using a few pictures as your “proof”, but just like 99% of all pictures taken of UFOs, the Monk Park pictures are poorly taken and inconclusive in that regard.

“Which has long been linked with the UFO issue”

And which Matt had no part in proving by his alleged break in at Monk’s Park. There is yet to be any proof that any part of the Wiltshire underground is connected to Rudloe. It might be there, but there just has not been any proof of it.

Matt did absolutely nothing for the UFO community by claiming to break into Monk’s Park. What a wonderful deal Matt got! Matt went to Monk’s Park to find the connection to Rudloe and their UFO files and he failed, and now he is a hero for it. I wish I would have thought of that.

The Special Branch does not conduct investigative interviews in people’s private residences. They take people in for questioning; they do not make house calls for such things. So as for the tape that Robin made? That is all it is: a tape Robin MADE. It means nothing nor proves anything outside of that.

“Yet being the key word. It’s coming though, and soon”

That is merely a sales pitch. It is always “coming soon” but it never really gets here. When the first “revelation” bombs out, there will be another to follow…and another and another. It will not be anything different from any other yet-another-conspiracy theory we have all heard before.

I don’t understand your line of thinking with respect to Matthew Williams and Monks Park.

There’s no doubt he broke in at all. Go to this link and scroll down to photos 3, 4 and 5. Photo 5 shows a chap in a white t-shirt. That is Richard Conway of the British UFO Research Assocation who broke into Monks Park with Matthew. The other two color photos are also of Monks Park taken by Matthew. To demonstrate that they were really there, that’s why they elected to take some pictures showing the 2 of them in the photos.
Here’s the link:
http://www.subbrit.org.uk/rsg/sites/m/monks_park/

Now, go to this next link, which shows Matthew in Monks Park. He handed the camera over to Richard, so Richard could get shots proving Matthew was there.

This link is to a PDF version of Stuart Miller’s UFO Review magazine. Scroll down to page 8, and you’ll see the photo of Matthew (with arm raised) as taken by Richard.
Link:
http://www.uforeview.net/documents/issue16.pdf

Again, any UK tunnel expert, fanatic etc will confirm this IS Monks Park that is shown in the photos that show Matt and Richard.

You say: “Your comment that a Special Branch Detective would allow a personal audio-tape-recording to be made during an investigation is nonsense. For a real life Special Branch Detective to allow that is unheard of — except in all those Harry Potter-like UFO storytales we read about nowadays.”

Go back and read my words. I chose them VERY carefully. I NEVER said that Special Branch “allowed” the interview to be recorded. They most certainly did not. Indeed, at the time they didn’t even know that Robin was taping it - until it surfaced.

The story is a simple one: a month or so after Matthew Williams broke into Monks Park, Robin Cole published a book on UFO investigations undertaken by GCHQ (the UK equivalent of the USA’s NSA).

The story of Robin’s GCHQ expose became the subject of a prime-time news report on the BBC’s nightly news.

The very next day, Special Branch were on Robin’s back. But they made one, fatal mistake. Instead of just turning up at his front-door and saying “Police, open up,” they telephoned him in advance, advised him they would like to speak with him at the earliest opportunity, and requested a time.

Robin said they could come around that day. They did. Robin, however, had the foresight to set up a tape-recorder (which if I recall was a 120 minute tape on a small machine hidden behind a self-standing picture frame in the living room).

As the interview didn’t last too long, there was never an offending “click” as the tape ran out that might have alerted the SB officers to the fact that there was a recorder in the room.

Anyway, the tape was made, I’ve heard it, and I was able to speak with one of Detective Tim Camp’s colleagues some time ago who confirmed that SB were both angry and embarrassed that (a) the tape was made; and that (b) the details were spread amongst the UFO research community. As I said, Robin still has the original - and back-ups too.

You say: “The John Mack comment has a very good point to it: John Mack was hoaxed by someone close to him, and he has a Phd, so if someone like him could be hoaxed, so can you — and I believe you have with Matt and his alleged break in storytale. Next you will be telling us that you could never be hoaxed by someone close to you because you are too smart for that to ever happen to you.”

So what if someone COULD hoax me? It doesn’t mean they did! Then you say “…I believe you have with Matt…”

How ironic that you castigate those that have belief systems instead of hard facts; yet you resort to the “belief” angle when it suits you. Most interesting.

Then you say: ‘Next you will be telling us that you could never be hoaxed by someone close to you because you are too smart for that to ever happen to you.”

That’s a ridiculously sweeping, judgmental thing to say about my character. Of course, I would NEVER say I couldn’t be hoaxed. Indeed, I can think of a couple of cases told to me at least that turned out to be highly suspicious and ultimately collapsed. The perpetrators went back to their pathetic little lives.

But, just because people can be hoaxed, doesn’t mean that this can applied here, there etc. Each case has to be looked at on its own merit, and there’s no reason to suggest that because someone COULD be hoaxed that they HAVE been - in the case of Matthew and Monks Park.

You say: “…there is no evidence that the Special Branch opened a file on him because of his UFO pursuits, instead of the more plausible reason that had a file already because he has a criminal history such as trespassing.”

There is: the tape that Robin Cole made, which, as i have said before, makes it abundantly clear that SB were interested in both the UFO pursuits of Matthew and Robin AND their research into Rudloe Manor, GCHQ and Monks Park - and in the specific case of matthew (and not Robin, I would stress) his break in of the underground facility.

You say: “The demon theory is hyperbole because it is an exaggerated story — that is what hyperbole means. That particular theory is not being taken seriously by the Government from anything that we have been shown yet, but I have heard lots and lots of hype about it being the next biggest thing in UFOlogy.”

True, but the most important part of your words is: “…anything that we have been shown YET.”

Yet being the key word. It’s coming though, and soon.

Understood.

1. This is not about the pictures being authentic, this is about Matt’s story being authentic. I would venture to guess that Matt probably bought the pictures from someone else who did take the pictures. All Matt had to do then was simply show you the pictures and tell you he broke into the underground and took those pictures, and you would believe him without question. Possession of pictures does not prove the origination of the pictures.

Your comment that a Special Branch Detective would allow a personal audio-tape-recording to be made during an investigation is nonsense. For a real life Special Branch Detective to allow that is unheard of — except in all those Harry Potter-like UFO storytales we read about nowadays.

2. The John Mack comment has a very good point to it: John Mack was hoaxed by someone close to him, and he has a Phd, so if someone like him could be hoaxed, so can you — and I believe you have with Matt and his alleged break in storytale. Next you will be telling us that you could never be hoaxed by someone close to you because you are too smart for that to ever happen to you.

3. So what if Matt is a good friend? I answered that question: it provides a conflict of interest. You appear to believe him only because he is a friend, not because he can prove any of his storytales with some facts (hint: the photos are not proof of Matt breaking in). This is despite the fact that there is no evidence that the Special Branch opened a file on him because of his UFO pursuits, instead of the more plausible reason that had a file already because he has a criminal history such as trespassing.

4. The demon theory is hyperbole because it is an exaggerated story — that is what hyperbole means. That particular theory is not being taken seriously by the Government from anything that we have been shown yet, but I have heard lots and lots of hype about it being the next biggest thing in UFOlogy.

1. We certainly DO know that Matt took the photos at Monks Park because part of the installation that he broke into has been decomissioned, and (as per that YouTube link I inserted in a previous comment) you can compare Matt’s photos with the images on YouTube and it’s clearly the same place.
Plus: Matt and Richard Conway took photos of each other while they were there, rather than just of the place itself. So: it IS Monks Park and they WERE there.
As for the police: your comments are nonsense: first I NEVER said Matthew was interviewed by the police. Go back, and read carefully what I wrote.
I said Matthew wrote his article and OTHER researchers, such as Robin Cole were interviewed by Special Branch about Matthew’s activities.
SB were clearly trying to get a handle on Matt and his activities and what he was doing and why.
And remember that the interview between Detective Camp and Robin Cole was audio-tape-recorded for posterity and Robin has the original.
Next you’ll be asking me how do we know there is such a person as Detective Camp, or prove that Robin Cole even exists and is not some imaginary creation…Rest assured, Cole is known to countless people in the UK UFO research community and used to run a UFO group in the city of Cheltenham. As for the Cheltenham Special Branch op that looked into Matthew: I had a long chat some time ago with one of Camp’s colleagues about all this. And Matt is planning on using the UK FOIA to secure the release of his SB file.

2. Your John Mack comments are pointless. So what if he was hoaxed? That has no bearing on any other case of his, mine, or anyone else’s! All it has a bearing on is that one case.

3. So what if Matt is a good friend? That doesn’t take away the fact that Special Branch opened a file on him (as they did with Robin Cole, with George King, with UK UFO computer hacker Matthew Bevan, and more) because of his UFO pursuits.

4. Re the demon/DoD thing, you say: “To claim that the demon theory is a “bigger story” worth writing about is hyperbole — a very commonly used tool to sell stories that otherwise would not sell.”
Nonsense: it’s not hyperbole at all! You made a “Janitor” type comment and I pointed out that this was more significant and important because there are/were people in the official world who have received substantial funding, who have prepared official files, and have given official briefings to senior personnel and politicians that UFOs are piloted by demons from hell, who are here to steal our souls.
It isn’t hyperbole at all to suggest that this is something worth writing about.
It’s just a matter of fact that “official world had official funding to chase what they believed were alien demons” - for years, no less, IS a story, and by definition of the extraordinary nature, it is one of interest.
This is the big difference re the “janitor” comment”: yes, of course anyone - and everyone - has opinions and belief systems on all sorts of things: authors, janitors, cops, school-teachers, everyone.
The big difference is they aren’t getting funding to prepare lengthy reports and to brief military people, Intel people, and politicians on their UFO-demon beliefs in the Pentagon. That’s the big difference that makes this a story worth telling, and one that will generate interest.
I’m not going to be around now for the next few days after this morning, so if you have any response to this one I will read it - and respond - sometime next week.

Then Matt was allegedly questioned by the Police because of an article where Matt published the photos, but you do not know if that actually happened. You do not know because you were not there to witness it. What the police said is an example of hearsay.

Most importantly, Matt is your acquaintance, which provides a conflict of interest to your case that casts doubt on your ability to be objective about anything Matt tells you. I am sure you have lots of “friends” or acquaintance who have lots of tall tales to tell you because you are willing to believe them when nobody else is. It happens all the time: During the 1994 CSICOP conference held in Seattle, Washington, June 23 through 26, one of John Mack’s star ‘abduction’ patients he wrote about in his book ABDUCTION, Donna Bassett, came forward and confessed that she had never really been an abductee. She was just fooling John Mack. She went on to say that John Mack was so easy to fool into believing she was an abductee because John Mack failed to rely on any sort of scientific methodology. Does any of this matter anyway? No, because that whole charade is pointless. It proves nothing except you have some interesting friends and/or acquaintances with some interesting stories to tell.

Now back to the demon fairytale…

“What makes it a bigger story is that these people had official funding, gave official briefings (to other groups in DoD that were interested and also to certain politicians), and prepared official reports”

No doubt about that. The amount of stupidity that flows through the government everyday is incredible, but it means nothing unless someone listens *AND* takes them seriously *AND* it becomes part of the mainstream — meaning it is no longer relegated to the minority viewpoint as the demon theory is. To claim that the demon theory is a “bigger story” worth writing about is hyperbole — a very commonly used tool to sell stories that otherwise would not sell.

Re the things you state: yes I’ve seen the pictures and the pictures of the map.

Matt showed them to me in person 2 days after he took them. This included the emergency exit photos.

I used to go down to Wiltshire every summer during the crop circle season for 2 or 3 weeks at a time. Matt lives there. Monks Park is a short drive by car from where most of the circles can be found, so I used to meet up with him to hang out every season.

So, 2 days after he took the shots, he and Richard Conway met up with a load of us and showed us the photos - he’d just got them developed at a UK equivalent of Walgreens on a 1-hour service.

How do we know they were took under Rudloe? Easy: go to this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52ZVUIcRPTY

This was filmed at Monks Park after this part of it was decomissioned. The underground section is clearly the same one in Matt’s photos in 1997 when it was used to store defense components and was still active.

And please don’t say “How do we know it’s really Monks Park?” because any tunnel expert/fanatic/historian in the UK will tell you immediately that it is clearly Monks Park, and that Matt’s photos clearly show the same place.

You say: “Maybe he was being investigated due to his criminal history?”

He certainly was. In fact, in the interview with Robin Cole, Cheltenham Special Branch asked what Robin thought of Matt’s motivations, what his UFO views were, and was he working with subversives and what he thought about UFOs.

It’s clear that SB were interested deeply in Matt’s motivations, any subversive AND what he thought of UFOs.

You say: “Who cares if you have identified sixteen or so people who work for six or so Government organizations that believe UFOs are demonic?”

I would suggest that certain sectors of the official world will care (from the perspective of their reputations and the reputation of the people involved in the studies) when it soon becomes public knowledge that people of substantial rank in the DoD and elsewhere were having meetings and debates, and preparing reports using tax-payers money, and trying to find ways of defending us against what they believed were Satan’s hordes flying around the skies in UFOs created via some form of demonic alchemy!

It’s far different than a “who cares?” about the “janitor”-type situation that you cite, because these were people who conducted major briefings for people in the Pentagon and elsewhere in the 80s onwards, and gained support in places and with people whose names everyone is familiar with.

I don’t personally agree with this theory myself, as I have stressed.

But I guarantee that whether it’s true or not (in terms of what these people believe), when the story comes out in full, the fact that this is a belief-driven conclusion will be overshadowed by the stark realization that the US defense world has had in its service, senior personnel who believe demons are circling our skies and invading people’s bedrooms in the middle of the night to manipulate - and ultimately “steal” - their souls.

If it was just the case that these people I have identified were getting together in a bar after work to discuss the “demonic” theory over drinks, that would be a totally different matter, and I agree with you - that would not be a story, because anyone can believe anything about UFOs.

What makes it a bigger story is that these people had official funding, gave official briefings (to other groups in DoD that were interested and also to certain politicians), and prepared official reports.

Not scientifically of course, but by way of anecdote.

“Ten and a half years ago when Matt broke into Monks Park”

So the story goes, but stories are not proof.

“That it housed defense materials is evident from the official crests on some of the crates that Matt took photos of”

Pictures are not proof. Prove those crates existed at Monks Park and not in some local underground garage. Prove Matt took the pictures.

“Matt even took photos of the emergency exit maps on the walls of Monks Park”

Have you seen the emergency exit maps for yourself, in person? Is this map make believe? How do you know?

“There is a copious amount of evidence that Matt was investigated by Special Branch”

I thought they did not need to do that when all they had to do was read UFO literature? Maybe he was being investigated due to his criminal history?

You say this is provable but all we have is your word and Matt’s word. You two guys might be the most trustworthy and credible people in the world, but your words will never be good enough to prove anything. Let us pretend some guy breaks into an underground nuclear bunker and finds a few crates of UFO materials. Big deal! It does nothing to further the knowledge of UFOs or reinforce the idea of a Government conspiracy/monitoring program.

“I merely presented these 2 examples because, frankly, I have better things to do with my time than spend all night presenting dozens of such cases merely to satisfy you!”

I would be satisfied with just one really good case, if you had one. If these two cases were the best you could find, I can easily imagine how useless the rest of the cases will be in terms of demonstrable facts vs “trust me when I say…”.

“And as further evidence that Special Branch watches UFO researchers”

They do take some interest in some researchers, but because of the typical UFO researchers bizarre behavior, not because they believe in UFOs…at least not for the last 40 years.

“I have identified 4 former DIA personnel; several from the Los Alamos labs; various DoD; some private world-contractor company employees, and 3 who were allied to the RV program in the 70s. Plus several AFOSI and a few others”

Who cares if you have identified sixteen or so people who work for six or so Government organizations that believe UFOs are demonic? There are thousands more who believe the UFOs and demons are rubbish. What about the overwhelming number of those people who believe and promote something different then the Demon theory? I know a few people like the demon believers at my work but their opinions are irrelevant to company policy. Not everyone who works or expresses an opinion in a Government organization is worth listening to. In Government circles, these kind of people with their silly ideas are called “background noise”. If it is not official Government policy or if it is not publicized by a high official with lots of authority, those minority kind of opinions are no different then asking the janitor or a local Food Works employee at each of those Government agencies what they believe UFOs are doing here. In the end, who cares?

“This is all told in serious tones in the pages of an internal report that was supported by the beliefs of DoD players is a story worth telling”

But it is still just a story, not an objective report of facts.

Many thanks for your massively wrong comment!

All of Matt’s story is provable and your words demonstrate that you wrote them in haste and without having any understanding of certain aspects of UK ufology.

Fact: ten and a half years ago when Matt broke into Monks Park, the installation was most certainly not open to the public. It was leased to a company called Leafield Engineering and was not accessible to the public as it then housed defense materials and had a direct tunnel link to the military at Rudloe.

That it housed defense materials is evident from the official crests on some of the crates that Matt took photos of, in which the defense products were stored. Many were clearly destined for certain Royal Navy locations.

Matt even took photos of the emergency exit maps on the walls of Monks Park, thus demonstrating that they were maps directing people how to get out of Monks Park in the event of an emergency!

Only certain, now-decomissioned, areas of the extensive Wiltshire military tunnel complexes are open to the public. Some of the caving clubs that exist in the area also have access to the tunnels - but again, only to the open, decomissioned ones.

Those (and, as you may know, that is still a substantial amount) that are still closed to the public are still actively used by the military.

There is a copious amount of evidence that Matt was investigated by Special Branch. One part of the investigation of Matt was undertaken via a Special Branch office from the city of Cheltenham and under a Special Branch detective named Timothy Camp. This is an issue that has been seldom reported on and sadly overlooked by many in UK ufology in terms of significance.

Cheltenham UFO researcher Robin Cole audio-taped an *entire* interview that Detective Camp requested with him in late 1997 - the subject being Matt Williams, his UFO motivations, and his Monks Park research and his Rudloe research. This interview with Robin Cole was undertaken cordially by Camp and a colleague in Robin’s living room.

YOU SAY:
“One unprovable incident does not make a whole entire case. You have implied that the Government actively monitors UFO literature but your only evidence consists of one very outdated memo and a not too credible story about a man who claims that police questioned him after he published an article about his adventures. Again, why would any reasonable person believe any of that?”

Nonsense! My evidence is not just one memo and one man. I merely presented these 2 examples because, frankly, I have better things to do with my time than spend all night presenting dozens of such cases merely to satisfy you!

Surely you MUST realize that presenting 2 pieces of evidence doesn’t mean that only 2 pieces of such evidence exist??!!

And as further evidence that Special Branch watches UFO researchers, some time ago - via the terms of the British FOIA - Special Branch officially declassified its surveillance files on George King of the Aetherius Society.

Then there’s the Australian Intel files I highlighted at this very blog a couple of months ago that deal with similar interest in Australian UFO researchers.

YOU SAY:
“When you speak of “certain elements” believing UFOs are of demonic origin, stop being so vague about it and tell us which elements and how many of them. That way, instead of using our imaginations to figure out how important that claim may or may not be, we can know exactly how important it is. For example, maybe your claim is based on one person’s report and they were a Chaplin in the Air Force. In that case, who cares? It is not a policy of the FBI, much less the Government to take that stance and that is what is important: the policy and not one or two people’s take on it.”

Er…correct me if I’m wrong, but I never claimed, nor wrote, that it was the policy of the US Govt or the FBI that UFOs have demonic origins.

I specifically said that certain elements of the official world believe this to be so, and have prepared reports on it.

As for who they are: I have identified 4 former DIA personnel; several from the Los Alamos labs; various DoD; some private world-contractor company employees, and 3 who were allied to the RV program in the 70s. Plus several AFOSI and a few others. One person who contributed a kind of viewpoint comment in one of the reports worked for the Drug Enforcement Agency and claimed a very weird and disturbing encounter in South America in January 1982 (on DEA business) that had a profound effect on him and led him to take the demonic viewpoint. I would stress he was merely an interviewee for one of the reports and was not a part of any think-tank group.

I have a new book on all this coming out in literally a matter of just a few months and copies of the files (photocopies) will be included.

The important part of this story is that it demonstrates that - regardless of the fact that this is not official policy (which I never claimed) - there ARE people in the official, defense, intel world in the USA who believe UFOs are demonic, who have prepared reports on same, who have briefed high-ranking people on their beliefs, and whose beliefs have influenced people of significance.

People who are defending the nation and who believe that demonic aliens fly in our skies, and who also believe that those engaged in “abductions” are literal demonic soul stealers = major revelation. Hence why I am telling the story.

As I have stressed, this is most assuredly NOT my story, nor my belief. But do I think it is a story weirdly important enough to tell? Yes.

I’m not sure what the public (those who will care, at least) will think of the way its dollars have been spent, however…

That these files also talk about some of these same people also having the crackpot idea of trying to control these alleged demonic entities, and who were (and may still be) practicing devotees of Crwwley while they held official positions will, I suggest, cause a lot of red-faces too.

Adherents of the theory that something truly anomalous happened at Roswell will be pleased to know that one of the reports touches on Roswell and suggests Roswell really was anomalous.

The bad news for those adherents, according to the report, was that in the view of those in the group, Roswell was seen as a kind of “demonic trojan horse” designed to make the US Govt think it was dealing with aliens, when in reality this was a cunning ploy by the devil’s hordes.

The report even discusses the notion of the demons having the ability to utilize a kind of “cosmic alchemy” to create the alleged Roswell “memory metal” foil, thus further trying to reinforce the idea they are “aliens.”

Again, I don’t buy this at all (I continue to believe that Roswell will be explained as a classified balloon flight with humans on board), but that this is all told in serious tones in the pages of an internal report that was supported by the beliefs of DoD players is a story worth telling, however bizarre it looks…and however bizarre it will make those involved look too…

Why would any reasonable person believe any of that? Is any part of Matt’s story provable? No. It is all hearsay and meresay. Is there proof that Matt’s pictures came from where he says they did? No. My company has a very large underground basement labyrinth so if I took pictures of it and posted it on the Internet as “pictures of the underground base at Area 51 I broke into last weekend”, could anyone prove me wrong? No. Is there proof that Matthews was questioned by police after writing his article or do we just have to take him at his word? No. Other people have been to the underground bunker he speaks of and have had no issues with security. Only Matt seems to have this problem. It is just another urban myth that sheds absolutely no light on the subjects of UFOs or the alleged Government UFO conspiracy. I wonder from the stories he tells, if Matt could be Kal Korff in disguise?

One unprovable incident does not make a whole entire case. You have implied that the Government actively monitors UFO literature but your only evidence consists of one very outdated memo and a not too credible story about a man who claims that police questioned him after he published an article about his adventures. Again, why would any reasonable person believe any of that?

When you speak of “certain elements” believing UFOs are of demonic origin, stop being so vague about it and tell us which elements and how many of them. That way, instead of using our imaginations to figure out how important that claim may or may not be, we can know exactly how important it is. For example, maybe your claim is based on one person’s report and they were a Chaplin in the Air Force. In that case, who cares? It is not a policy of the FBI, much less the Government to take that stance and that is what is important: the policy and not one or two people’s take on it.